agenda vs bullmq
Side-by-side comparison of agenda and bullmq
- Weekly Downloads
- 154.2K
- Stars
- 9.6K
- Gzip Size
- 80.1 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 5d ago
- Open Issues
- 6
- Forks
- 833
- Unpacked Size
- 295.0 kB
- Dependencies
- 8
- Weekly Downloads
- 2.9M
- Stars
- 8.4K
- Gzip Size
- 175.6 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 26m ago
- Open Issues
- 328
- Forks
- 558
- Unpacked Size
- 2.3 MB
- Dependencies
- 19
Download Trends
Verdict
Agenda is a lightweight job scheduler ideal for projects with simple scheduling needs using Node.js. It is particularly suited for applications requiring tasks like cron jobs with minimal overhead, appealing to developers focused on straightforward scheduling without extensive infrastructure.
In contrast, bullmq serves as a robust message and job queue based on Redis, making it preferable for larger applications that necessitate handling significant volumes of jobs or messages. If your application is already leveraging Redis and requires more advanced features like retries and prioritization, bullmq would be a more fitting choice.
While agenda is easier to set up and operate due to its smaller size and simpler architecture, bullmq's reliance on Redis could introduce additional complexity and infrastructure requirements. Developers should consider their specific use cases and existing technology stack when making a choice between these two packages.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | agenda | bullmq |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity | ✓Simple architecture suitable for new developers to grasp. | More complex due to its Redis dependency and advanced features. |
| Open Issues | ✓A manageable number of open issues at 6, showcasing possible stability. | A higher number of open issues at 328, indicating ongoing challenges. |
| GitHub Stars | ✓Well-regarded with 9.6K stars, indicating strong community support. | Moderate popularity at 8.4K stars. |
| Use Case Fit | Ideal for applications needing basic job scheduling. | ✓Best for large systems that require message queuing and job processing. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓Compact at 295.0 kB, suitable for lightweight applications. | Larger at 2.3 MB, necessitating consideration for overhead. |
| Redis Dependence | ✓Does not require external services, making it easier to deploy. | Dependent on Redis, which requires additional infrastructure management. |
| Weekly Downloads | Moderate interest with 154.3K weekly downloads. | ✓High demand reflected in 2.9M weekly downloads. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | ✓Efficiently small with a gzip size of 80.1 kB. | Bulkier at 175.6 kB, affecting loading times. |